300 secular students visit Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum”

A number of us had an exciting weekend. The Secular Student Alliance had their national conference this past Friday through Sunday, in Columbus, Ohio…a quick two hour drive from the infamous Creation “Museum” in Kentucky. So a field trip was hastily organized, which quickly grew and grew, until over 300 of us gathered before the doors of Ken Ham’s very silly establishment and spent an afternoon prowling through the absurdities. We now have a fine collection of articles for you to read.

We managed to rouse the ire of Ken Ham, who wrote a few complaints and attempted defenses of his goofball palaces. Both of his complaints have been shot down — with the evidence we gathered on the trip.

Of course, the real triumph of the whole big shindig was that I got to ride the triceratops with a saddle!

You guys did a wonderful thing. No question. Now, the challenge is to expose to the general public what you found. The silliness, the absurdity, the foolish nonsense and mindlessness of the place.
Thanks to all of you who went there, and especially to that Evil Doctor Myers and the Secular Student Alliance.
Bwahahahahahahhhaaaaaa . … .

The picture does have some inaccuracies. I mean, everyone knows you need reigns and stirrups to properly control and ride a triceratops. And that saddle, really? You need a saddle like those used to ride camels if you’re going on a long distance journey. Otherwise you’ll keep sliding off the back. And look at this little fella! It’s obviously a juvenile incapable of carrying a large male of PZ’s stature. As I understand it, Adam was quite a bit shorter.

Yep, I’d say Mr. Ham has more scientific research to do if he wants my respect. =:)

What you wrote was that 300 secular students lined up for the museum. What Ken Ham saw was 300 customers lined up for his museum. We already know what is inside that dump. I see no gain whatsoever in continuing to line Ham’s pockets.

So many people have made that argument, and it’s getting a little stale. What I saw was 300 vocal young people getting informed – people who are now speaking out against the museum. We won. Any time we push back ignorance, it is a victory.

If it will make you feel better, apparently the museum, in their paranoia, hired extra security to watch us during our visit. I don’t think they made any profit at all.

“What you wrote was that 300 secular students lined up for the museum. What Ken Ham saw was 300 customers lined up for his museum. We already know what is inside that dump. I see no gain whatsoever in continuing to line Ham’s pockets.”

I can just see the headlines now:

Creation museum makes record profits with outreach to students!

In other news, in a soccer match between the United States and Mexico, Mexico finished second and the United States came in next to last!

As much as I detest giving money to Ham, I think it is a small price to pay in order to expose his duplicity for all to see. When creationists refuse to even read a scientific paper, we can hold this up as an example of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, (of their brain cells), in order to expose creationist lies.

Now if PZ could have gotten a group discount rate, that would have been even better. At any rate, the extra security was priceless. Were they afraid that PZ would try to ride off on the Triceratops? We should rename this the Fred Flintstone memorial museum.

Is that one of those kid’s rides you used to see at shopping malls in his “museum?” You know, put in a quarter and it bumps up and down for a minute - gives kids a thrill. Maybe that’s his idea of kicks.

Can I assume that the museum did not know the identity of the group when it offered the group discount? Can I assume that PZ was not thrown out by security once he was recognized? Can I assume that the incident was not video taped and will not be used to promote the museum as being endorsed by scientists?

FastEddie: $10x300 is a small price to pay for ABC to cover the museum’s completely inane claims on national television.

The SSA’s field trip (and PZ) shone a national spotlight on some of the more crazy beliefs of the YECers. While an honest and accurate description of ther beliefs may do nothing to change the minds of a YECer, to the moderate TV watchers who know little about Ham or AIG, this type of coverage is extremely effective in shifting their perspective from “his call for fairness sounds reasonable to me” to “this guy’s certifiable, I don’t want my kids taught that.”

In short, truth is our best weapon in convincing the uninformed middle. The more light we shine on AIG’s beliefs, the better.

So many people have made that argument, and it’s getting a little stale. What I saw was 300 vocal young people getting informed – people who are now speaking out against the museum. We won. Any time we push back ignorance, it is a victory.

If it will make you feel better, apparently the museum, in their paranoia, hired extra security to watch us during our visit. I don’t think they made any profit at all.

I agree. Also, I believe the extra security was there to make sure that you didn’t steal any of their valuable artifacts. I mean it’s a museum so they had to have valuable, relevant artifacts supporting their position, right?

The museum’s marginal revenue from the visit was $3000 ($10 x 300). Their marginal cost from these 300 extra people tromping through the building probably was not very much: a few extra security guards, a few more toilets being flushed, and maybe an extra hour to clean up. So, we could estimate the marginal costs as:

$600 for 5 guards working 8 hours for the day at $15/hr.
$50 for 5 janitors to work an extra hour each cleaning up at $10/hr.
$240 for 2 extra tour guides working 8 hours for the day at $15/hr.*

It looks to me like the museum only incurred an extra $890 in expenses at most from the visit, which is well below the marginal revenue of $3000 even if the true expense was twice my number. So, rather than a trivial effect, the museum’s profits were probably nicely enhanced from the visit.

Maybe the visit will further spread word of the absurdity of the museum and improve science eductation so that in the long run they will actually lose visitors. Maybe. But given the Ham’s target audience, the publicity seems as likely to increase business. “Pastor says the evilutionists are in a tizzy over the creation museum. Let’s go there for vacation!”

* Other expenses such as rent, property taxes, insurance, etc. would have been incurred and in the same amounts even if P.Z.’s group had not shown up that day, so they are not factored in here.

…So, rather than a trivial effect, the museum’s profits were probably nicely enhanced from the visit.

Your inner economist forgot about opportunity costs. How much revenue was lost because YECers willing to shell out $23/person stayed away due to the well-publicized SSA field trip? Even setting the extra costs at $0, SSA would only have had to deter 131 regular visitors to cause the museum to lose money.

Without at least comparing daily attendence records, we/you have no idea whether the museum made money or lost money on the SSA field trip.

What would be worth more than the maximum that AIG might have made on the deal is to obtain a critical analysis - or the more likely weaseling out thereof - of specific YEC claims by DI folk. Everyone from the supposed YEC Paul Nelson to the common-descent-accepting Michael Behe should be asked to comment.

Reason is an enemy, millions of years is an enemy, let’s add another: reality is their enemy. No wonder they’re so paranoid!

Paranoid enough to admit that OECs and most IDers are also the “enemy”? And since one of the 7C’s is “Christ,” do they admit that Michael Medved, Ben Stein and David Klingoffer are “enemies”, and would be even if they were YECs?

With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.

On August 11, Ken Ham responded to that particular accusation:

(PZ Myers) claims concerning our exhibit on the Tower of Babel:

With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.

I publicly challenge this professor to document with photographs and actual scripts that the Creation Museum teaches “that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham”!!

Not only do we not teach such an absurd idea (that sadly has been used by some to promote racism and prejudice against dark skinned people), we teach against it. In our book Darwin’s Plantation, I particularly deal with this issue, pointing out that dark skinned people (“black” people) are certainly not “the cursed offspring of Ham.”

In fact, it is only one of Ham’s sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan—who gave rise to the Canaanites and people of Sodom and Gomorrah—judged for their sexual immorality. And this “curse” of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade!

We do not teach that “all races stemmed from the children of Noah”—as we explain, there is only one race biologically of human beings (as we are all descendants of two people, Adam and Eve)—different people groups, but not different “races.”

When we speak or write on this topic, we usually will say things like “so-called races” or put “races” in quotes to make the point. I always urge people not to use this term (because of how it has been used with evolutionary connotations), but use the term people groups.

The “Confusion” section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah—obviously so, as Noah’s family was the only family to survive the Flood.

******

Surfing around the AIG Website for a while, I can personally attest that Ham is correct. I cannot find any AIG articles whatsoever that advocate the position “black people are the cursed offspring of Ham.”

But within three minutes, I was able to easily locate an AIG Feedback article that specifically refuted such a position.

Some “White” Christians have assumed that the so-called “curse of Ham” (Genesis 9:25) was to cause Ham’s descendents to be black and to be cursed.
While it is likely that African peoples are descended from Ham (Cush, Phut, and Mizraim), it is not likely that they are descended from Canaan—the curse was actually declared on Canaan, not Ham. — Paul Taylor and Bodie Hodge, “The Bible and Slavery”, AIG, 2007.

So it seems to me (a non-white person, btw) that this part of PZ Myers’ article is clearly and visibly in error, and Ham is clearly correct.

There may be other areas of Myers’ article in error, but this one is very clear and demonstrable, even though I have not had an opportunity to visit the Creation Museum for myself.

Okay, first off, regarding this Ham silliness.. yes, the curse was said to have been placed on Canaan. The offspring of Ham, who himself is described as being the originator of the African race. This is graphically depicted in the museum by picture with an arrow leading from the tower of babel, for Ham’s offspring the arrow goes into Africa and I should stress that the beginning of the arrow has “Canaan” written inside it. If Canaan’s offspring didn’t become Africans I’m a little puzzled what that name is doing at the root of the African diaspora vector.

The defense appears to be that Ham originated the African race, but Canaan, the cursed one, didn’t count as African even though he was one of Ham’s offspring.

I know ID supporters have a problem with the concept of nested hierarchies, but if Ham’s descendants became the Africans then his son was one of them. Unless the bible says “but Canaan did not begat anyone else and his curse died with him”.

And a comment on the issue of whether this was useful or just fattened the other Ham’s coffers.. I’m of two minds about it. I think the guy is rolling in money, it’s not like this SSA visit was the difference between him having to close the doors of the institution versus them staying open another year. But still, yes, it probably did provide him with more money and he’s not going to be accomplishing anything positive with those extra resources.

But at the same time, this whole phenomenon of creationist museums is completely unknown to at least some. I’ve been repeating these stories to other people, and they repeat them to others.. and the reports that I get back are that some people are completely astounded to hear that creationism museums exist. We take this for granted, but apparently there are still people in the US who think that creationism is a historical footnote rather than an ongoing concern.

I can’t say whether this little stunt reached any of those people, but if it has some good may yet come of that. It’s certainly being spread through the web 2.0 sphere. It’s being blogged, posted to youtube, posted to flicker, and so on.

And this last one is certainly not productive in any sense, but.. I am so enjoying watching Ham squirm regarding the publicity surrounding this thing.

FL said:
So it seems to me (a non-white person, btw) that this part of PZ Myers’ article is clearly and visibly in error, and Ham is clearly correct.

PZ is talking about a museum exhibit. To prove him wrong, you have to show that the museum exhibit does not say what PZ says it does.

Nomad said:
I should stress that the beginning of the [African diaspora] arrow has “Canaan” written inside it. If Canaan’s offspring didn’t become Africans I’m a little puzzled what that name is doing at the root of the African diaspora vector.

bing bing bing!

Pay attention FL, Nomad is showing you how to do good research. Note that he chose to examine the actual exhibit, rather than web surfing around for a quote that would support his opinion.

FL said:
There may be other areas of Myers’ article in error, but this one is very clear and demonstrable, even though I have not had an opportunity to visit the Creation Museum for myself.

What is clear to me is that you are willing to completely ignore primary source evidence (the exhibit) in favor of a secondary source (Ham’s discussion of the the curse of Ham) when it supports your preconceived opinion.

PZ correctly characterizes the museum display’s message. The error is yours, not his, and you made it by ignoring primary source data in favor of a single bit of secondary source data.

What is clear to me is that you are willing to completely ignore primary source evidence (the exhibit) in favor of a secondary source (Ham’s discussion of the the curse of Ham) when it supports your preconceived opinion.

FL has repeatedly demonstrated the bizarre mindset of the fundamentalist.

He purports to be able to correct us about fables for which he has no evidence and for which he has no prospect of ever acquiring evidence.

Then he quote mines crap about science which millions of people can go out and check and verify that the facts and evidence are quite otherwise from what he has claimed.

Yet he never gets it. FL is a perfect example of what fundamentalism does to a person’s brain.

First Thanks for responding, I love debating this subject.
I never said there were facts to support creationism.
I am not slamming Museums, I said I am just secure in creationism.

Really? So you pop on here, call thousands upon thousands of scientists and students “stupid”, claim there are no “facts” supporting evolution, and then say you are not “slamming” museums. I’d say you are fairly representative here of creationism – no facts, no grasp of any aspect of the science backing up evolution, and a flagrant assertion that science must be wrong because you believe in your own personal “literal” interpretation of the Bible, freely acknowledging that the only evidence that the Bible is true is your personal belief that it must be so, and nothing else.

If you would like to debate, why don’t you at least pick a topic. There are plenty of posts more current than this one that provide a platform for discussion. You can peruse the responses to see how a typical troll is handled, but you will also find that occasionally there is a productive exchange (or at least a polite one). The choice of tone is yours, but as a hint, you are not off to a good start.

And by the way, I pass 19 churches in 4 miles everyday on my way to work. Most children in my state are not taught evolution in the public schools, in spite of the state standards. While occasionally I will see a television program talking about evolution (rare), we have 7 TV stations (plus at least 5 more on the HD channels) that are provided as part of the standard cable TV package that continuously broadcast fundamentalist Christian programming, including regular slams against evolution. And of course there are 5 FM radio stations that broadcast fundamentalist Christianity. There is one single public cable channel TV show that is occasionally shown that represents the “Free Thinkers.” It dealt with evolution once. Only about 12-15 % of the American public accepts evolutionary biology as true. I’m having trouble accepting your persecution claim. Lunch over, back to work studying the pesky fossils that you say don’t exist, or at least provide no evidence for evolution. If you have a question, we would be happy to answer it.

How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution.

Shoved down your throat Stacy? Was this a phrase you learned at a teabagging meeting? Really, what is it with rightwingers and suggestive metaphors? Do you have a Haggertlike side bursting to explode out?

How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution.

Shoved down your throat Stacy? Was this a phrase you learned at a teabagging meeting? Really, what is it with rightwingers and suggestive metaphors? Do you have a Haggertlike side bursting to explode out?

I know guys, sorry, I just can’t help myself.

It’s rather ironic that Creationists like Stacy whine and yodel about having evolution shoved down their throats, even though it’s the Creationists soapboxing about how, if you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and of the Book of Genesis in particular, you’re going to Hell to be personally tortured by God for ever and ever and ever.

That, and it seems odd that Stacy complains about having evolution shoved down her throat, but can not give an accurate definition of it.

I never said there were facts to support creationism. -snip- I am just secure in creationism.

Well, that pretty much says it all

“I have no facts. I have no evidence. But I have belief.”

Therefore all the hundreds of thousands of people go out every day and successfully make their living using tools and techniques based solely on evolution (because, frankly, there simply are are no tools and techniques based on creationism), well all those people don’t know what they’re talking about.

The belief that life can come from non-life and information can arise from matter despite there being no evidence of this ever happening constitutes a belief system as well. Don’t knock someone because they have a belief. You obviously have your own beliefs.

The message you are interpreting from Creationists are inaccurate. They do not claim you will go to hell if you don’t believe in the creation as described in Genesis.

If you think creationists are slapping scientists and students in the face and rejecting science, that simply displays your ignorance on the matter. Watch the movie Expelled if you want to see why scientists with opposing ideas are shunned by the science community. The female scientist who discovered the pliable matter inside a T-Rex thigh bone a few years back was ridiculed for the suggestion that the bone was younger than we thought. I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

What is very apparent is that evolutionists resort to name-calling when their beliefs are threatened by creationists. How many “Bible-thumpers” have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

answerman said:
How many “Bible-thumpers” have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

…aside from Stacy, lol.. thanks, Stacy. The word idiot was thrown out quite a bit in the last couple of pages. It’s to be expected really. When people who were not raised to believe in the Bible and all their knowledge of the earth comes from interpretations from man (which get updated all the time as new discoveries render their previous assumptions false) you can expect them to get upset with Bible believers.

Another word about scientists. Look up Dr. Gary Parker and Dr. Andrew Snelling. They are both great resources for geological information. Dr. Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist who has insightful information regarding the cosmos.

Information (and, before you say it, complexity) can and often does increase as natural forces act upon material. This is easily empirically demonstrated. It’s not a belief, it’s a confirmed fact. To claim otherwise is mere intransigent ignorance.

Some creationists do not claim that Hell awaits those who do not believe in the Genesis account. Others emphatically do, and they say it out loud and proud.

The movie Expelled was a vile lie from top to bottom. Not one of its ludicrous claims was factual. There have been no ‘expulsions’ of scientists who present verifiable facts. The only attacks on scientists who do, come from outside science. Often they come from creationists.

Nobody found “pliable tissue inside a T-rex thigh bone” on first investigating. The specimen was rehydrated, the structures were no more than a few millimeters across, and no researcher stated that they were the original tissue, only that they appeared similar. Other examples of very closely detailed structures that are exquisitely preserved by mineralisation are known.

Dr Mary Higby Schweitzer, the ‘female scientist’ in question, did not suggest that the fossil was younger than the K-Th and amino acid racemisation dates indicated. These agreed on over 65 million years. Blood cells were not recovered, and were almost certainly not present. What was found was probable haemoglobin products and some detailed organic structures, but as the original paper states: “Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.” (Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955) That is, there is no evidence that this was ever original soft tissue at all, and it could have been mineralised. Read the original paper.

I, personally, have been called stupid and worse for advocating the teaching of science, including the theory of evolution, in public schools, and have had abusive letters and phone calls for advocating it in letters to the newspaper. My score in this department, however, is rather low, by comparison with others. Ask other regular contributers here.

You are repeating easily disproven falsehoods. I thought the founders of most religions - not only Christianity - warned their followers not to do that.

The belief that life can come from non-life and information can arise from matter despite there being no evidence of this ever happening constitutes a belief system as well.

What exactly do you mean by ‘information’? Are you denying that there is information in the wavelengths of light being emitted by the sun? Are you denying that there is information in the wavelengths of light that make it through the atmosphere?

There is increasing evidence that life can arise from non-life. Reputable scientists are suggesting that it may be done in a laboratory within the next decade.

If you think creationists are slapping scientists and students in the face and rejecting science, that simply displays your ignorance on the matter.

What are your beliefs on the origin of life? Creationists come in different versions, but many require a denial of biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics and archaeology. What is left?

The female scientist who discovered the pliable matter inside a T-Rex thigh bone a few years back was ridiculed for the suggestion that the bone was younger than we thought.

I do not believe that she ever made this suggestion. Reference, please.

I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

I could suggest that I saw a tree walking down the street. That does not mean it requires an explanation other than that I was mistaken. My understanding is that no actual blood cells or tissues did survive. Again, do you have a real reference to this point?

What is very apparent is that evolutionists resort to name-calling when their beliefs are threatened by creationists.

I wish my beliefs were sometimes threatened by creationists. As it is, all they ever come up with is complete and utter rubbish that reveals that they do not have a clue and have failed to learn anything about science in the last 50 years.

How many “Bible-thumpers” have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

answerman said:
I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

The bone was fossilized. They soaked it in acid to remove the minerals, leaving some of the soft tissue fairly intact.

Its a spectacular and so far unique (AFAIK) specimen, but the fact that the bone and all the “soft” cells in it were actually mineralized has been reported repeatedly since the story broke in early 2005. So if you haven’t “seen a REAL answer” yet its because the creationist sites you frequent are feeding you false information and/or selectively omitting the information that disproves their claim - not because the answer doesn’t exist.

“The specimen was rehydrated” as your explanation as to why it was not pliable tissue. Wow.

“You are repeating easily disproven falsehoods.”
On the contrary, there are so many articles concerning “soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation” that I would simply be doing the work for you. If you’d like to close your eyes to the facts, be my guest. Google either “Schweitzer MH” or my soft tissue quote from my first sentence in this post. You’ll find more non-creationist sites than creationist ones discussing this.

I’ll help you out. Although some say differently than what you claim, so don’t get mad.

Of course, if you read the smithsonian article, you’ll also note the scientist lamenting about how young earth creationists have hijacked her finds and deliberately twisting her words around in order to promote their own anti-science propaganda.

Correct. I did read that. That doesn’t make the fact of the finding any less truthful in regards to what it was. The reason for the excitement over the find by everyone is how could this have lasted so long? Young-Earth Creationists don’t find it surprising. She is an Old-Earth Creationist so she will naturally cling to the 65 million year age.

“Old-Earth Creationist”? Thank you for confirming Dr Schweitzer’s lament about deliberately twisting her words in order to mislead other people.

Last I heard, the term “Creationist” specifically refers to those Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) who reject the idea of evolution because the idea somehow conflicts with their faith: Dr Schweitzer never said she rejects evolution.

Yes, Old-Earth Creationist… there’s no twisting of her words at all. You should read more about Mary Schweitzer. She is a christian and accepts evolution. Old-Earth Creationist means someone who believes God created the universe and the earth but took billions of years to do it unlike what the Bible actually teaches. I’m surprised you haven’t heard about that concept. There are ongoing debates amongst Christians regarding the age of the earth. A lot of Christians believe in evolution. A lot of them do not. It may help you to google “Old-Earth Creationist”.

Dr. David Menton who has a PhD in cell biology wrote the statement below. He apparently believes in creationism and submitted this information to a creationist group so I suppose we can disregard his opinions and cast aside his PhD:

“The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe”).

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.”

I just have one thing to say. You can bash creation all you want. Just remember God created man in his own image. And we christians won’t judge you Evolutionist, that is the Lord’s job. So you don’t have to believe in creation at all. I’ll just let you think about this one thing, alright?

Jesus will return through the clouds of the sky with his angels when he comes back to judge the world one day, and every eye will see him. God created you anyway.

Does this bother you? Just learn how to pray and God will surely prove to you he exist.

Oh, and I missed that nonsense from answerman, back in February. Here’s the actual, you know, information:

“Mass spectrometry measures the mass to charge ratio of individual molecules (peptides) that have been charged, identifying them by weight. Peptide fragmentation patterns reveal the amino acid sequence. The advantage of this method is that it extremely sensitive and can be used in cases where only very small amounts of material are available for analysis. That was definitely true of the T. rex sample, which only produced a miniscule amount of remnant protein, and the protein was in a mixture of other material that had remained after the extraction process.”

In other words, the bone was almost entirely mineralised. Statements to the effect that it was like a fresh bone are therefore false.

It is perfectly true that this particular fossil was in an astonishingly good state of preservation. It was found in estuarine strata - that DOESN’T mean the same as “rock layers laid down by water” - and the conditions were as perfect as it’s possible to get.

Internal structures were preserved so well that microscopic examination showed even “cell-like morphology” that is, structures that were shaped like cells. But only trace amounts of the protein remained, and no evidence for cells containing DNA was found. In other words, this is an extraordinary fossil, better preserved than any found so far - but the dating by radiometric and racemisation methods used on it agrees to within a couple of million years. It’s 65 million years old, not 4500, and AiG is lying. Again.

Dave, you have knowledge from a humanistic view and your understanding and what you think you know will be blown away some day.

Are you aware of Jesus Christ’s first miracle? Our creator is not confined by time as we know it and what we think the age of something is based on the best science of today doesn’t mean that is the correct answer.

I do not think the earth is 6,000 years old, nor do I think it is 4.5 billion years old.

I checked it out. Those are EXTRA-biblical sources, just like the maps in the back of your bible. It doesn’t count unless it’s in the text of the bible somewhere. Anybody can make up stuff to show what “must have happened” or “could have happened” or “what the bible really meant” (a cottage industry among literalists).

And how about the Hindu Cush (or Kush) mountains in Afghanistan, huh? Sounds to me like a more believable destination for a group that moved from Turkey east into Sumeria. And they wouldn’t have had to evolve so radically and rapidly into black Africans. Of course that imagined migration wouldn’t justify the “curse of Ham,” which, yes, was and still is used by white xian supremacists as justification for black slavery and oppression. Those are the folks that made those maps in your bible.

Actually, Ham was right. The biblical Cushites were/and still are the people in southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. Even today many groups in African refer to themselves as cushites, oromos, bejas, and somali, maybe you still had certain cushites groups that stay in the middle eastern area, and later move to other regions, but the cushites still live on the African continent as well as the Arabian Peninsular.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/kterms/g/kush.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gY8[…]ture=related

For the same reason that all Africans are assumed to be descended from some middle easterners…

No, He never said that Adam and Eve were white, but he actually said that they were most likely similar to what we call Mulatto today, in other words so called mix race people. He later explain with mix race people can produce multiple colors of people within a generation, Again he said most like Adam, Eve, Noah and his family were most likely mix race looking people.

I just have one thing to say. You can bash creation all you want. Just remember God created man in his own image. And we christians won’t judge you Evolutionist, that is the Lord’s job. So you don’t have to believe in creation at all. I’ll just let you think about this one thing, alright?

Jesus will return through the clouds of the sky with his angels when he comes back to judge the world one day, and every eye will see him. God created you anyway.

Does this bother you?

Nope.

Just learn how to pray and God will surely prove to you he exist.

Yes, but praying to YOUR god will tick off the real god if you are wrong.

That’s why the pascal’s wager argument is a crappy one. It provides an equal rationale to perform an infinite number of mutually contradictory worship actions (and the atheist version provides equal rationale for no worship at all).

BTW, isn’t it somewhat blasphemous to call yourself THE prince of peace?

PZ, aside from laughing at the clown that you are on the dino ride, your answer to this question should be easy, but hardly laughable to your subjects…How long from the time it was buried, in years, can buried in the dirt organic material / tissue remain unpermineralized?